I've spoken to and gotten email this morning from many readers who are extremely upset with Steve Kraske's analysis of last night's presidential debate. And when I say "extremely upset," I'm not exaggerating. One caller just now, her voice trembling with anger, told me she was canceling because the front page didn't say boldly that Romney had won the debate. She then slammed the phone down in my ear.
The fury is because Kraske's analysis is out of step with what the majority of pundits are saying today. That's fine -- and I've long thought it's fair to debate whether analyses of any kind belong in the news sections at all. I understand fully when readers ask whether that's an appropriate type of piece for a news reporter to write, as it involves interpretation and subjectivity that professional journalists attempt to avoid in straight news coverage. (Do go and read the piece, though. It does not, as some callers have said, give a straight endorsement of Obama for president.)
There are only two counterpoints I'll make here:
1. The editorial board wrote that Romney won. That's the general consensus on the left today, where disappointment in Obama's performance is the dominant theme.
2. The constant drumbeat I've heard from conservative readers for many years is that all journalists across all media march in lockstep, always agreeing with each other on every topic. Well, here we have a longtime political reporter who has a take that's different from most out there -- and suddenly that is evidence of The Star's overall bias? There's a serious disconnect here.
If you don't like the analysis, by all means write a letter to the editor about it or join the chorus in the comments online.
Practice What You Preach
I just read your comments about the blatantly biased ”reporting” of Kraske. Then, I clicked above left on your papers ”code of conduct”. No point in me quoting line by line, because I want you to review it yourself and then tell me how his article (and even your flimsy attempt to excuse his clear bias) doesn't violate at least 10 different items of the code. If the papet had any integrity left (doubtful because it was probably eliminated during one of the many rounds of cutbacks), he would be suspended or fired.
Strike, two.
Ad Astrum seems to me to be an opportunity for the Star not only to defend and explain itself, but to correct missteps. Today's post misses on all three counts.
1. Singling out an extreme case, and leading the reader to assume that is representative of the whole. "One caller.... trembling with anger"? Either characterize the bulk of callers, or include an explanation of why only this one is mentioned.
2. Your bias is (still) showing. Glad to know the editorial board agreed that Romney won, although you characterize that as Obama lost. If it doesn't diminish Romney somehow, it just never seems to make it into print in the Star.
3. It wouldn't be the Star without a strawman. Apparently you haven't actually listened to the "drumbeat" from conservative readers. It's not that "all journalists across all media march in lockstep". To the contrary, "journalists" can be very creative in competing with each other for not only spinning towards a theme, but away from one. Like my point above, diminishing Romney's win as only due to Obama's poor performance. Kraske's column is exactly an example of that bias, irregardless of his unique spin.
Maybe Obama couldn't find his footing because Romney kept pulling the rug out from under him. Maybe Obama can't defend the half truths and distortions that comprise his campaign. Maybe Romney isn't the cartoon caricature and Obama isn't the cartoon superhero the media has portrayed them to be. But the Star's most accurate reporting can still be found in its comics section. Much of its political reporting belongs there.
Reggie, you really don't
Reggie, you really don't want me to "characterize the bulk of callers," because the most callers on this subject were generally abusive and definitely not the kind of face you or anyone else would want on an ideology. I got cursed and screamed at more yesterday than I've heard in years. The loudest voices on the right have a major civility problem these days -- very similar to the anti-war left in the runup to the 2004 election.
My apologies on their behalf
There you go again. Comparing civility problems on the right with war protesters back in 2004. Bush Derangement Syndrome ran heavy all the way through 2008, and spanned the spectrum of which anti-war was only one battle cry. Let us know when someone on the right urinates on your car (NYC), plots a bombing (Cleveland), accosts you physically when exiting an event even if you're elderly in a wheelchair (DC). Now THAT'S civility problems, and it's ALWAYS on the left.
Irregardless, no one deserves to be treated poorly while doing their jobs. I'm sure the abuse comes from frustration over the Star's ongoing slanted coverage of all things politic, and this instance really "jumped the shark". I hope that Mr. Kraske either apologizes to you as well for inciting the abuse or at least buys you lunch for suffering the abuse that he incited. The callers owe you an apology too.
When you're at lunch with Mr. Kraske, don't ask him to change his style. There is a delicious irony to the responsibility he and his peers share for treating Obama so gently that he has no idea how to respond to real facts, counter arguments, and real plans- all presented by an actual leader who doesn't disdain his opposition.
Obama vs. Romney
The Star's own poll had it over 70% thought Romney won, yet Kraske calls it a "draw."
Somebody's wearing blinders and I don't think it's the 70 percent.
Maybe we should let Kraske
Maybe we should let Kraske write articles about the Chiefs and Royals to improve on their records...